The Real Origin of the Tea Party Movement

I recently read with joy a conservative blogger’s attempt to connect the TEA party movement to its historic roots; a topic I have been meaning to write about for months now. The blogger rightly said that the “the historical precedent for the TPM wasn’t the Tea Party event in Boston Harbor on December 16, 1773.” I actually uttered an “Amen, brother!” He went on to describe the Continental Association established on October 20, 1774 by the First Continental Congress in response to the Intolerable Acts. That’s when I realized that I have waited long enough to write this article.

The fact is the Continental Association of 1774 (10 months after the Boston Tea Party) is about 10 years too late. The first organized opposition to a tyrannical government in the colonies came in 1764 in the form of the Committees of Correspondence.

In April 1764 Parliament passed the Sugar and Molasses Act. These laws were originally passed in 1733 at the insistence of the large plantation owners in the British West Indies (can you say lobbyists?) The six-pence tax was never successfully collected, and so the Sugar Act actually cut the tax in half but stepped up enforcement. At the same time, the Sugar Act taxed the sugar, coffee, wine, and spices the colonists used, and also regulated the export of lumber and iron. This “excessive taxation and regulation” immediately impaired the colonial economy. In conjunction with the Sugar Act, parliament passed the Currency Act, which essentially assumed control of the colonial monetary system. The Currency Act also established “superior” Vice-admiralty courts to ensure rulings favorable to British interests.

In 1764 the colonies were in the midst of a depressed economy due to the protracted Seven Years’ War, so these indirect taxes and restrictive laws were particularly grievous. In addition to the economic impact, the psychological impact was particularly offensive. The Sugar Act not only restricted the exports by the colonists, but gave an economic “leg up” to the British West Indies. This reinforced the second class status often attributed to the colonists by the British “mainlanders”. The ports of New England were hit especially hard due to the taxes, regulation and government interference. Many of the merchants were in danger of being driven out of the market into bankruptcy.

So in 1764 the first “grass roots” opposition to tyranny in the colonies took shape in the form of a Committee of Correspondence in Boston. The colonists did not have email, smart phones, Facebook or blogs, so the Committees of Correspondence served as a means of communication on issues that needed collective attention. The committee in Boston wrote to other colonies to rally united opposition to the Sugar Act and the Currency Act sparking anti-government protests among the colonists.

On the heels of these protests the Parliament, deciding to clamp down on the rebellious colonists, passed the first Stamp Act and Quartering Act of 1765, and New York formed its Committee of Correspondence to rally resistance to the new taxes and tyranny. Massachusetts Bay committee then sent out letters urging other colonies to send representatives to a Stamp Act Congress in the fall.

As a decade of hostility between the royal government and the colonists rolled on, Boston set up the first Committee with the approval of a town meeting 1772. By spring 1773, patriots decided to follow the Massachusetts system and began to set up their own Committees in each colony. By February 1774, 11 colonies had set up Committees of Correspondence. The Committees would eventually be the basis for the Continental Congress and the Continental Association of 1774. As the revolutionary period unfolded the Committees of Correspondence would become the basis for the future legislative bodies in America. Yet it all began in 1764 as a citizen movement in response to an oppressive government that would not respond to or respect the wishes of the people.

Two of the men behind the movement were Samuel Adams and James Otis Jr.

Mr. Otis was an attorney who had gained notoriety for his pro bono representation of colonial merchants challenging the authority of the writs of assistance in 1761. These writs enabled British authorities to enter any colonist’s home with no advance notice, no probable cause and no reason given. (Today these writs are called national security letters and are authorized under the Patriot Act.) John Adams said of Otis’ five-hour oration in the Boston State House that

“the child independence was then and there born, [for] every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance.”

Also speaking of Otis, John Adams said,

“I have been young and now I am old, and I solemnly say I have never known a man whose love of country was more ardent or sincere, never one who suffered so much, never one whose service for any 10 years of his life were so important and essential to the cause of his country as those of Mr. Otis from 1760 to 1770.”

Better known was Samuel Adams, a representative of the local Boston assembly and member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Samuel Adams had this to say in May 1764:

“For if our Trade may be taxed, why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & everything we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves. It strikes at our British privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain. If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves?”

Samuel Adams would later organize the Sons of Liberty which coordinated the famous Boston Tea Party of 1773.

But let’s not forget the ladies of the TEA party movement. Penelope Barker of Edenton, North Carolina organized the Edenton Tea Party in 1774. In the home of her friend Elizabeth King, she and 50 other women signed a declaration and sent it to be published in a London newspaper. In part the declaration said:

Get the Book Today!

“Maybe it has only been men who have protested the king up to now. That only means we women have taken too long to let our voices be heard. We are signing our names to a document, not hiding ourselves behind costumes like the men in Boston did at their tea party. The British will know who we are…We, the aforesaid Ladys will not promote ye wear of any manufacturer from England until such time that all acts which tend to enslave our Native country shall be repealed.”

Much like the liberal media of today these principled women were attacked and portrayed by the British as bad mothers and loose women. However, the colonists praised these ladies and the women of the colonies followed their lead and began boycotting British goods.

In light of historical fact, it is clear to any rational and reasonable mind that the modern TEA party movement is not a modern movement at all. The TEA party represents the heart of the American ideal of liberty and self-government. These brave men and women did not sit idly by in the face of oppression and tyranny because they understood their history and knew their rights. They understood that their rights came from God and had been guaranteed to them beginning at the 1100 Charter of Liberties, through the Magna Carter of 1215, and the English Bill of Rights of 1688. Their liberty was not a modern development and neither is ours. That is why, in spite of Rachel Maddow’s pronouncement that the TEA party is over because of small rallies, the TEA party is not going away. It has been here for 247 years and will continue as long as the founding principles of America still burn in the hearts of patriots.

KrisAnne Hall is an attorney and former prosecutor, fired after teaching the Constitution to TEA Party groups - she would not sacrifice liberty for a paycheck. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor's wife and a patriot.She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents.All articles originally published at krisannehall.com

thanks for the history lesson – lots of info I didn’t know and take to heart – but the author of this piece missed a very important part of why the Colonies declared their independence from GB – she fails to mentioned the Currency Acts – especially, the Act of 1764 – the economy in the Colonies didn’t go in a tailspin due to this tax and that tax, but by the fact that England took away from the Colonies their ability to “create” their own money in Colonial Scrip – they forced the colonists to “borrow” money from the Bank of England at interest – that is what led to the Revolutionary War and Declaration of Independence – even today “We the People” are forced to go to a middle man and borrow our money through the Federal Reserve – I believe we need another Revolution and take back the control of our money before the FED destroys the sovereignty of this great nation – the FED is unconstitutional and should be abolished – go to my website: fedruin.com for more info and read my book THE MONEY SPIDERS for a true picture of what caused the hostilities that led to the founding of this country. The Tea Party is here to stay – God Bless this great Nation!!

sorry, the author did mention the Currency Acts – in my research, the British Parliment’s support of the Bank of England and forcing the Colonists to borrow their money from the B of E was the main cause of the revolt for independence – once you take away the ability to “create” your own money, and are required to pay a 3d party for the privilege, you lose Freedom and that is what pissed off the Colonist more then anything – the tax on tea could have been handled, but not the control of the Colonies money supply – the Colonists saw the deceit and corruption (much like today’s FED) and said enough is enough and cut the ties with England – we need to do this in this country – cut the ties with the Money Power, the FED!!

The Tea Party has historic roots in other colonies besides Massachusetts. Don’t forget the Regulator movement in North Carolina which formed in 1764. This was composed of farmers from the western portion of the state. These patriots also deserve credit for resisting the crown, and with guns, not just with written broadsides. They formed a citizen’ s group to fight exorbitant taxation imposed on them by the tidewater aristocrats of the eastern part of the state. The group was active for 7 years until vanquished by the state militia. Seven of it’s leaders were hanged. That’s Tea Party.

To sum up Sam Adams: No taxation without representation because that guarantees free subjects.

“Free subjects” is a contradiction. But let’s suppose he meant free citizens. What is a citizen but a member of the body politic, i.e., a subscriber to a social system where a government exists. Does that leave room for non-citizens, e.g., anarchists? Are some free to bow to gov’t and others not? Can there be a sovereign gov’t and sovereign persons? Can I govern myself and let you be governed by others? Can I bow to gov’t and change my mind by seceding? Can a free person exist under rule? I say NO to all these questions.

A person who believes gov’t is needed to assure rights wants: 1. Universal compliance. 2. Gov’t as the final authority, e.g., limits individuals and itself. Also, it defines justice, right and wrong, and “the good”. A “right” is what the gov’t defines as a right, as in, “the right to fight (kill or be killed) for your country” but no right to refuse the “honor”.

It was not Adams but Jefferson who came up with a completely new, non-contradictory explanation for abolishing rule. He stated in his Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal”, i.e., no man can lord over (rule) another, and “all men are created with inalienable rights”, i.e., as sovereign individuals. This was the first time a society was based on the individual as the primary value. The gov’t was an after thought created with the sole purpose of protecting the individual. No other country claimed this ideal. America was first. And may be the last.

It might be useful to consider a “supercommittee of governors” to consider the issues of state sovereignty – or some other appointed agents. George Kennan in his last book “Around the Cragged Hill” proposed that the United States consider 12 regions to which some states law can advance and some federal law can retreat. This cannot be done by Senate or House or feds – governors need to think for themselves: These regions are actually “natural states” – Tolstoy’s phrase (I think) which have evolved these too hundred years out of forest and plantation. To evolve culturally and psychologically they need to begin to think for themselves.

@Bernie Quigley Bernie: That sounds exactly like the NWO plan to break up the US into regions; along the lines of the ten FEMA regions we already have. I like the current setup fine, except for the fact the Federal Govt. has gone way beyond their enumerated powers so that schemes like regional councils are proposed as a solution instead of t he states doing what they decide is right for them.

@Bernie Quigley By “they” I hope you don’t mean to imply group think. This is a collectivist anti-concept concept. I fully endorse independent thought as essential, but that can only occur on an individual basis. I am against state sovereignty for the same reason as fed sovereignty. Personal sovereignty is impossible along with gov’t sovereignty. Either each of us is sovereign or an elite group calling themselves “the state”, or “representatives” or “gov’t” is, but not both. Remember, kings called themselves “the sovereign” to let everyone know they came first. Rulers are people who put themselves first. The ruled are servants. It was un-American to be servants.(ruled). That has changed. Admitting it is the first step in correcting it.

Interesting but still does not explain why they called it the TEA party. Colonists had been boycotting British tea. We opposed a tax put on tea. Our wholesalers of tea were getting their tea from the Dutch. This black market tea sold for less than the regular market tea because it paid no tea tax. East India Company was losing money.

First off tea was bought at auction in London. American wholesalers sailed to England to purchase tea to then resell to American retailers when it sailed the tea back to the American colonies. Due to a tax imposed on Tea American wholesalers were getting their tea instead from the Dutch and avoiding this tax.

Second EIC again was losing money. It was a corporation whose stockholders did not exclude the crown and parliament. The Tea Act was passed.

It did NOT raise taxes. It in fact lowered tea tax for ONE company, EIC. It had gotten an exemption like this before which had expired. This tax exemption was more in depth BUT was not the real kicker. EIC was allowed to sell DIRECTLY to consumers and it could choose who it wanted to be its agents. This meant that EIC could form a monopoly on the tea market. This would put a lot of American businessmen who were in the tea industry out of business. It would as well give Americans CHEAPER tea, and ironically our Walmart tea. This act would allow the EIC to sell tea to consumers for less than the black market tea.

EIC sailed its tea to several American ports. All the governors but one sent the ships away. The ship remained in New England. The tea was thrown overboard due to this monopoly given to it by the Tea Act.

The Sons of Liberty had their causes yes which were many but this article conflates the Boston Tea Party to them when the latter was called such because they threw the EIC tea overboard. And AGAIN for the Tea Act that gave the EIC the ability to form a monopoly on tea.

There is no reason why anyone anywhere else would just call themselves the Tea Party if not opposed to the Tea Act because why not the Sugar Party or the Stamp Party? Both of the latter actually raised taxes. The Tea Act did not. It allowed a monopoly to be formed which again is THE reason why they threw the tea overboard in the first place.

Now post this tea being thrown into the harbor the governor demanded that payment for the property destroyed be made. He as well shut down the harbor till it was paid. This led to more Acts being passed by Parliament that led to martial law, revocation of the new england charter, and the revolution.

The REAL Tea Party was against Crony Capitalism which is what the Tea Act was. Today’s Tea Party seems oblivious to that. Why would the Modern Tea Party ignore this when it went to DC and instead go after Social Programs and seem stuck on the deficit. Where was this tea party from 2001 through 2008 when deficit balance was through the roof? Again when it entered DC why was it not going after Wall Street and ending all the connections and favors that Wall Street got from Main Street? So nice article that mentions banks of our colonial past and the Fed today but nothing of the Wall Street BANKING firms. Where was the Tea Party investigating them? Why did it not bring back the regulations that separated the Commercial Firms from the Investment Firms? And even more important why is it not passing legislation to reverse Citizens United to get the buying of govt off for favors out of DC?

State and Local govts have been bringing housing fraud to courts. People at those levels are being arrested, charged, and convicted BUT no one at the Federal level and I am saying WALL STREET. The economy did not collapse because of entitlement programs or deficit spending or even unpaid for two wars or even simply taxes. It collapsed due to crony capitalism.

To that I will bring up Ron Paul and his bogus housing market prediction. What is so dishonest about his claim is that he was FOR the repeal of the Glass-Seagall Act. The act that separated Commercial Banking from Investment Banking. The Act that repealed it though he felt added more regulations which he was against so he abstained from voting on it. WOW.

From years now talking to people who associated as the Tea Party all of them are extreme right wing and ultra conservative anti govt types.

KrisAnne Hall is an attorney and former prosecutor, fired after teaching the Constitution to TEA Party groups - she would not sacrifice liberty for a paycheck. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor's wife and a patriot.She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents.All articles originally published at krisannehall.com